About your Search

20131101
20131130
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
. it doesn't feel good. >> rory lit sl a professor of legal ethics at the uc hastings college of law. and a former federal prosecutor. >> both reviewed the facemasks vournding that saturday at the shooing range. >> does that raise questions about the integrity of the investigation? >> it presents issues of appearance, and it could very well lead to the ultimate conclusion that there might bf issues affecting the integrity of the investigation. >> did the sheriff make a mistake by allowing aldon smith to come to this event to shoot her weapons, to fly in her helicopter? >> based on what we know, it sounds like it's a mistake. a mistake in judgment or public perception. yeah. she probably thinks she made a mistake, too. >> at a minimum, the district attorney is probably going to look at the situation and want to talk to the sheriff's office and make sure the investigation wasn't in any way tainted. >> yofrk are i don't think it's wise or justifiable for him to be at the range firing with ammuniti ammunition. >> you think there was something wrong with it? i don't. why aren't they comin
in california and nationally and wide variation on a state to state level and city to city. we at uc hastings have been looking at these issues over the last year and a half in conjunction of ucfs that's focused on the research aspect. we've been looking at the legal analysis and i with my colleagues have recently published a paper in the health care market that addresses these issues. as part of that work, we've been looking at the legal barriers to price transparency. today we were invited to speak about the legal barriers and we're going to focus on two. we're going to focus on contract barriers and then trade secret protection that had been claimed with respect to health care health care prices. let's start with contractural prices. it limits the sufficient in the health care market and prevent information from being disclosed. the gag clauses that we've discussed and there's antitiers and steering previsions which was spoken of this earlier. this prevent ensurers to using information. with the gag clauses, these are the con track you'll -- there maybe be instances where you have t
where they are? well, this is published by michelle simon, a former graduate of uc-hastings, and a former research associate. and now a word from our sponsor. academy of nutrition and dietetics. are america's nutrition professionals in the pocket of big food? how about this? co-opting health professionals. i give a talk at the american academy of pediatrics and of tober, 2009, and i had this slide. -- in october, 2009. and they said if you show the slide, we will not let you on the dais. i had to take it out, but i'm showing it now. here is what has happened to our food dollars. 1982, 30 years ago, 2012. meat down 10%, because we were told to go low-fat. fruits and vegetables exactly the same. everyone tells us, we need to get more. we are eating all the fruits and vegetables we can. grains and baked goods. up 1%. . not even a big deal dairy products down from 13% to 10% because we are all lactose intolerant. finally, processed foods and sweets. 22.9%, a doubling in 30 years. that is where the money went. that is what you are paying for, and that is what is causing the chron
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)